I have the 1997 Scott Hull remasters of Oxygene and Equinoxe which I absolutely love. I am put off by the 2014 remasters by this review on Amazon. Can anyone shed any more light on this?

The 2014 remasters of Oxygene, Equinoxe and Magnetic Fields as remastered by David Dadwater are much less musical and enjoyable than the 1997 Scott Hull remasters. Where the 1997 remasters are engaging and expansive in sound, the 2014 remasters seem to emphasise bass and amplify the overall volume to "modernise" the sound but as a result seem to lose the coherence which the original had - and because the very sounds used are so much a part of this music it is essential that they be balanced just as was intended and achieved in 1976. A classic such as Oxygene has no need to be modernised. Part of its almost 40 year old charm is that it achieved its much loved sound in 1976!

In fairness the 2014 remasters are at a giveaway price and that price is worth it alone for the excellent sleevenotes by Phil Alexander of Mojo - but the over-amplified and at times searingly digitised sound doesn't reveal the deeply engaging quality of this music and the depth of the sound-world created - there's even an uncorrected error in the very first moment of Oxygene!

I don't think that the Scott Hull remasters can be improved upon - in digital form. The 1997 remasters were entirely sympathetic to the music - a most analogue sound albeit from a compact disc and a 1997 compact disc at that.

If the supposed technological advance between 1997 and 2014 is the reason for the issuing of these 2014 remasters then it seems to be a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. Could it be that too great a reliance was placed on the application of algorithms in the remastering process and not enough on the remastering engineers own ears?

Buy these new 2014 remasters for the sympathetic, illuminating and beautifully written sleevenotes by Phil Alexander but if you want to listen to this beautiful music in its best form then seek out the 1997 remasters by Scott Hull.

Five stars for the music and the fact that these remasters continue to make this music available to new listeners and for the sleevenotes - but two stars taken off because no one seems to have listened back to the 1997 Scott Hull remasters and realised that they're SO much better and should continue to be the standard issue available.

I'm also with an eye on these new 2014 remasters.
Indeed all Jarre catalogue is set to be remastered and released from 2014 and on.

I only got to listen to "The Concerts in China" and sincerely I don't know what to make of it.
The audio is pretty loud, on par with current mastering practices done in loudness war times that we all hate.
The stereo seems to be wider, some tracks were redone like this to enhance the "live" experience. More reverberation and spatial sound.
This trick works nicely, but it doesn't grant any better advantage on 1982 or 1997 editions. Loud is fatiguing, period.

I consider the Scott Hull remasters to be a bit over equalized and muffled.
It may depend on how your ears will accept, but I found Concerts in China/97 very muffled and Chronologie/97 over equalized.

What I can say is that it's a pure mess now, and it's no wonder.
When you remaster like this, you end up having some well done tracks in each of the editions.
For example, I may find that "Magnetic Fields II" is better on the 97 remaster, while "Orient Express" may be better on 2014 and
"Souvenir of China" still much better in its original 82 form.

If these sound better than the original West German pressings I'd be stunned

Click to expand...

Of all the horrible 80s mastering jobs out there which beg to be revisited, I shake my head in disgust that they choose to toy around with an artist having a perfectly acceptable catalog mastering-wise. Bet dimes to dollars they make it worse.

The 2014 remasters of Oxygene, Equinoxe and Magnetic Fields as remastered by David Dadwater are much less musical and enjoyable than the 1997 Scott Hull remasters. Where the 1997 remasters are engaging and expansive in sound, the 2014 remasters seem to emphasise bass and amplify the overall volume to "modernise" the sound but as a result seem to lose the coherence which the original had - and because the very sounds used are so much a part of this music it is essential that they be balanced just as was intended and achieved in 1976. A classic such as Oxygene has no need to be modernised. Part of its almost 40 year old charm is that it achieved its much loved sound in 1976!

Five stars for the music and the fact that these remasters continue to make this music available to new listeners and for the sleevenotes - but two stars taken off because no one seems to have listened back to the 1997 Scott Hull remasters and realised that they're SO much better and should continue to be the standard issue available.

Click to expand...

That doesn't bode well for the JMJ albums I've held off buying till now because they're OOP for many years. I own the 1997 remasters of his first 3 studio albums and the Concerts in China disc, but might want to explore his catalog further. I'm hoping for reissues of OOP albums like Rendez-vous, Revolutions, Zoolook and Chronologie, but if these reissues have the 'modernized' sound that's described in that Amazon review, I might do better and find some of the earlier issues.

I just picked up the 2014 remaster of Concerts in China, as it's the first copy of the album I've ever come across. HMV had the new remasters of Oxygene and Equinoxe in stock as well, but I already own older editions of both.

It's also worth pointing out that the 2014 Cities in Concert - Houston / Lyon seems to be based on the orinal album which is 48 minutes long and has most tracks edited, some are missing several minutes. The 1997 remaster is 71 minutes long, has the full versions and two additional tracks.

Avoid those 2014 remasters like the plague! The 1997 ones are not that bad, IMHO.

Click to expand...

I bought the first two albums on cd fri just gone for £5 each. They sound really good. I then read all these negative reviews about how "loud" they are etc . Out of interest I compared my new CDs to my original Polydor LPs & the CDs sound fresher. I'm the first to detest Brickwalled mastering but exaggerations are claimed here.

Two weeks ago I corrected a mistake I made some years ago when I hunted down the 1997 remasters of The Concerts in China, Magnetic Fields and Zoolook. I removed them from my collection.

Luckily I stored my early Polydor CD's in a box, and didn't sell them. So it was easy to put the old mastering back in my collection. My only problem is that the tracks Zoolook and Zoolookologie sound quite good on the remaster. But I'm hunting down the first CD release of Zoolook while we speak (I currently have the 3rd, 1985, mastering).

The Concerts In China;
After recently playing The Concerts in China Lp (first time in approximately 30 years) and realising I
had totally overlooked this classic with regard to a CD version I tried the 2014 re-master.

The Vinyl left me wanting more, another 2 sides perhaps, whereas with the 2014 re-master I could
not play through the 2nd CD and still have not managed to do so with headphones (the bin looking a likely destination).
Luckily I managed to source (still quite commonly available apparently) a 1986 (?) dreyfus polydor disc and this sounds fantastic.

I do not have any issues of note for any of the discs below;
Oxygene / Equinoxe / Magnetic Fields / Concerts in China / Zoolook / Rendez-vous / Chronologie

Equinoxe;
Equinoxe part 5 on my vinyl copy (A1 / B4 Matrix) sounds a little dull when compared to the cd,
apparently this has been noted on vinyl editions (and very first cd) before 1982 or 83 (?) after which
the sound is much more alive on 1980’s cds?

Also it has been noted that re-masters of Equinoxe and Zoolook 1997 + have had the L/R channels switched for some unknown reason?

Over the last couple of months I have really enjoyed listening to the small collection of Jean-Michel Jarre Cds I own, they truly are musical treasures (imo).

i may be the only one here, but I actually like the sound of 2014/15 sony remasters. I found "Magnetic Fields" and "Waiting for Cousteu" especially good but Rendez - Vous and Equinoxe also sounded fine for me. (didn't listen to others yet)

Picked up a 05 Equinoxe yesterday (£1) and it is the first time I have noticed the crackle throughout Equinoxe Part 3 = Never noticed it before on the 02.
Short audio samples from the 800 025-2 02 and 05 Equinoxe Part 3;dropcanvas - instant drag and drop sharing